Ontario College of Pharmacists v. Aslam, 2026 ONCPDC 8

Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists

Date: 2026-03-13

IN THE MATTER of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c.18, as amended, and the regulations thereunder, as amended;

AND IN THE MATTER of the Pharmacy Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c.36, as amended, and the regulations thereunder, as amended;

AND IN THE MATTER of the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.4, as amended, and the regulations thereunder, as amended;

AND IN THE MATTER of allegations of professional misconduct before the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists as referred by the Accreditation/Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee against Sohail Aslam;

Between:

Ontario College of Pharmacists

Olivia Eng For Ontario College of Pharmacists

Katharine Neufeld Attending for Ontario College of Pharmacists

• and -

sohail aslam (Registration #215257)

Craig Colraine For the Registrant

Sohail Aslam, R.Ph. Not in Attendance

Cynthia Kuehl Independent Legal Counsel

Heard: November 4, 2025

Decision Released: November 4, 2025

Written Decision Date: March 13, 2026

Panel Members:

Megan Peck, R. Ph., Chair Douglas Brown, R.Ph., Elected Director Devinder Walia, Public Member

ORDER AND REASONS FOR ORDER

THIS MOTION, made by the Registrant for an in-person hearing, was heard on November 4, 2025, by videoconference.

ON READING the Motion Record of the Registrant and the Responding Factum of the Ontario College of Pharmacists and upon hearing the submissions of the parties:

I. Background to the Motion

1This motion regarding the mode of the hearing was brought by Sohail Aslam (the “Registrant”) and as requested by the parties it was heard immediately before a separate motion brought by the Ontario College of Pharmacists (the “College”) as to vulnerable witness accommodations. (Ontario (College of Pharmacists) v. Aslam, 2026 ONCPDC 9) Both motions were heard on November 4, 2025.

2The Registrant’s discipline proceeding has a lengthy history, including several motions and an appeal to the Divisional Court.

3In August 2018, the Discipline Committee heard a motion brought by the College seeking accommodations for the Complainant during the hearing on the merits. The Panel found the Complainant to be a vulnerable witness and granted the request for accommodations. A physical screen was set up in the hearing room to separate the Complainant from the Registrant during her testimony, and the Registrant viewed the Complainant’s testimony via video transmission.

4A contested discipline hearing on the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing was held in 2019 in-person, which was the normal mode of Discipline Committee hearings before the COVID-19 pandemic. The evidentiary phase of the hearing involved extensive oral evidence over 12 hearing days, most of which was for the testimony of the Complainant. The Panel of the Discipline Committee found that some of the allegations of professional misconduct in the Notice of Hearing were established, while others were not. (Ontario (College of Pharmacists) v. Aslam, 2020 ONCPDC 31) The Panel subsequently issued their written Decision and Reasons on Order on August 25, 2022. (Ontario (College of Pharmacists) v. Aslam, 2022 ONCPDC 22)

5The Registrant appealed the Discipline Committee’s decisions to the Divisional Court, which both allowed the appeal in part and dismissed the appeal in part. The Divisional Court upheld the Discipline Committee’s findings of professional misconduct in paragraphs 2 and 4(b) of the Notice of Hearing; set aside the findings and dismissed the allegations of professional misconduct in paragraphs 3(a)(v) and 4(a)(v); and set aside and remitted back to the Discipline Committee for a new hearing the allegations of professional misconduct in paragraphs 3(a)(i) and 4(a)(i) (the “Office Incident”).

6The dates for the new discipline hearing had not been confirmed at the time of this motion.

7The Registrant’s position respecting the mode of the hearing is that an in-person hearing (as opposed to an electronic hearing via videoconference) is required for the new discipline hearing.

8The College did not oppose the relief sought in this motion. However, the College filed a responding factum to address the fact that the College disagreed with some of the grounds of the motion.

II. Order

9The Panel of the Discipline Committee made an Order on November 4, 2025, as follows:

1. The hearing before the Discipline Committee regarding the allegations of professional misconduct made by the Ontario College of Pharmacists against the Registrant, as set out in the Notice of Hearing, dated September 12, 2017, shall be held in-person.

III. Submissions of the Parties

A. The Registrant

10The Registrant’s Motion Record contains a Notice of Motion; however, no written submissions were filed. The grounds for the motion are listed in part as:

a) The Registrant will be prejudiced should the hearing proceed virtually;

b) Direct and cross-examinations of the Complainant through an interpreter via videoconference will be difficult, inefficient, and considerably more time consuming than if the hearing were conducted in-person;

c) An in-person hearing will aid the Discipline Committee in its truth-seeking function and assessing the witnesses’ credibility and reliability;

d) The Divisional Court set aside, and remitted back for a new hearing, the findings of the Discipline Committee in the first discipline hearing regarding the allegations of sexual misconduct against the Registrant in respect of the Office Incident. The Divisional Court found the Complainant’s allegations to have been “self-contradictory and arguably bizarre at times.” The credibility assessment of the Complainant at the new discipline hearing will be particularly important;

e) The rehearing of the Office Incident allegations cannot be undertaken fairly and in accordance with the principles of fairness and natural justice without an in-person hearing; and

f) Rule 8 of the Discipline Committee Rules of Procedure, February 2015 (“DC Rules”).

11In his oral submissions, the Registrant asks the Panel to order an in-person hearing for the rehearing of the Office Incident allegations. He points out three distinct grounds for the motion for an in-person hearing: (i) fairness of the hearing; (ii) ability to assess the credibility and reliability of the Complainant and the other witnesses; and (iii) efficiency. The Registrant said he would not make oral submissions on the fairness issue in this motion. Instead, the Registrant focused on the other two issues, namely the ability of the new hearing panel to assess the credibility and reliability of the Complainant and the other witnesses, and the efficiency issue.

12The Registrant reiterates in his oral submissions that the Divisional Court found the Complainant’s testimony regarding the allegations of sexual misconduct in the Office Incident to be bizarre at times. He submits that this finding of the Divisional Court emphasized the importance of assessing the Complainant’s credibility at the new discipline hearing and by extension argues that credibility and reliability of witnesses can be assessed better at an in-person hearing rather than one held by videoconference.

13The Registrant submits that he understands that the Complainant will seek to provide her evidence at the new hearing through an interpreter as she did at the first hearing. The Registrant describes the Complainant’s ability to give and manner of providing testimony via an interpreter as being unique. He anticipates 14 to 15 days of hearing time will be required for the Complainant to provide her evidence. The Registrant submits that if the hearing were to be held via videoconference, then it would significantly extend the time needed for the hearing.

14The Registrant argues that the facts in the cases the College presented in Schedule A of its factum (Ontario (College of Pharmacists) v. Salehi, 2025 ONCPDC 1 [Salehi]; Davies v. The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 2015 ONSC 7353 [Davies]; Pack all manufacturing Inc. v. Triad plastics Inc., 2001 7655 (ON SC); and Ontario College of Teachers v. Mammarella, 2022 ONOCT 87 [Mammarella]) are distinguishable from the facts in this motion, including this case’s history through the first hearing and the Divisional Court.

15In summary, the Registrant points out that the College did not oppose this motion for an in-person hearing and in fact agreed with one of the Registrant’s three grounds in this motion, being efficiency. The Registrant disagrees with the College and submits that there are two other grounds, namely procedural fairness and assessing the credibility and reliability of the witnesses. However, the Registrant indicates that no matter whether there are one or three grounds for this motion, there was no difference. The Registrant is seeking an order directing that the rehearing on the merits in this matter proceed in-person, and the College does not oppose the order being sought by the Registrant.

B. The College

16The College in oral and written submissions states that it is not opposing the Registrant’s motion for the new hearing to be held in-person. However, the College points out that it does not agree with two of the three grounds being argued by the Registrant in this motion.

17With respect to the ground agreed upon by both parties, namely the efficiency of the hearing, the College submits that this case has both unique circumstances and an unusual procedural history.

18The College points out that the first hearing proceeded as an in-person hearing, which was the presumptive mode of hearing prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. The liability phase of the first hearing took 14 hearing days (excluding the records motion), 12 of which were comprised of viva voce evidence from several witnesses. The Complainant, whose first language is not English, provided lengthy testimony through an interpreter and would require a similar amount of hearing days and an interpreter for the new hearing. As at the first hearing, most of the hearing time will consist of the Complainant’s evidence.

19The College argues that the manner of delivery of the Complainant’s evidence in the first hearing gave rise to certain challenges specific to that case. The challenges experienced in the first hearing could be exasperated by holding the new hearing by videoconference. Further layers of friction such as video lag and audio problems could add to the difficulties in the orderly delivery of the Complainant’s testimony and unduly or unexpectedly add to the time required for the hearing.

20The College in its factum outlines the lengthy and unusual procedural history of this discipline proceeding which dates back to 2016. An in-person hearing into the allegations outlined in the Notice of Hearing was held, and the Discipline Committee’s decision was appealed to the Divisional Court. The Divisional Court remitted the Office Incident allegations back to the Discipline Committee for a new hearing. The Registrant brought a motion to stay the Office Incident allegations because of delay. The Discipline Committee dismissed the Registrant’s motion. The Registrant then brought an application for judicial review of the Discipline Committee’s abuse of process decision. The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review.

21The College submits that given the particular circumstances of this case there is a heightened interest to bring this matter to a conclusion by taking steps to ensure the orderly progress of the hearing, including completing the hearing in the scheduled time. For these reasons, the College does not oppose the order sought in this motion on the basis of efficiency.

22The College then turns to its oral and written submissions regarding the Registrant’s other two grounds in the motion, namely assessing witness credibility and reliability via videoconferencing and unfairness to the Registrant if the new hearing were to proceed electronically.

23The College points out that an in-person hearing is not the norm for when a witness requires an interpreter. Furthermore, the College does not agree with the Registrant that videoconferencing is a lesser means to assess witness credibility and reliability, or that the Registrant will be prejudiced if the new hearing proceeds virtually.

24To refute the Registrant’s argument that a virtual hearing impairs the ability of the trier of fact to assess witness credibility the College relies on the Discipline Committee’s decision in Salehi at paras 49 and 51-52 and the Divisional Court’s decision in Davies at paras 24 and 30.

25To dispute the Registrant’s argument that a virtual hearing impairs his right to a fair hearing, the College relies on the decision in Mammarella. At para 93, the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers found that “an electronic hearing would not unduly impact such an assessment [credibility assessment], nor would it be procedurally unfair to the Member.”

IV. Reasons for the Order

26The issue to be determined on this motion was whether the Discipline Committee should exercise its discretion to grant the order requested by the Registrant and direct that the new hearing for the Office Incident allegations proceed in-person, as opposed to via videoconference. The motion is not opposed by the College; however, the College agrees with only one of the Registrant’s three grounds of the motion, namely the efficiency of the new hearing based on the particular circumstances in this case.

27Discipline Committee hearings prior to the COVID-19 pandemic were usually held in-person. At the outset of the pandemic, the province enacted the Hearings in Tribunal Proceedings (Temporary Measures) Act, 2020, SO 2020, c. 5, Sch. 3 (“HTPTMA”), which allowed tribunals in Ontario to hold electronic hearings. Effective May 6, 2020, the Discipline Committee issued its direction, the Discipline Committee Direction on Electronic and Written Proceedings (the “Direction”), directing that electronic hearings are the presumptive format for hearings.

28This Panel has the authority to make the requested order as to the mode of the hearing on the merits. As noted in Salehi at para 38, the Discipline Committee has the authority to order a different mode of proceeding, including ordering an in-person hearing, as this is a discretionary decision made by the panel based on the circumstances of the case before it. Furthermore, at para 44 the panel in the Salehi decision noted that s. 3(2)(a) of the HTPTMA gives a tribunal the jurisdiction to make orders or give directions it considers appropriate in the circumstances respecting the hearing format and conduct.

29Section 5.2 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 (the “SPPA”) is the source of the Discipline Committee’s authority to determine the mode of the proceeding. While subsection 5.2(1) is permissive regarding a tribunal holding an electronic hearing when the tribunal has rules that deal with electronic hearings, subsection 5.2(2) prohibits an electronic hearing from being held if the panel is satisfied that holding an electronic hearing rather than an oral hearing will likely cause the party significant prejudice.

30The Discipline Committee’s authority to determine the mode of proceeding is also set out in Rule 8 of the DC Rules. Like subsection 5.2(2) of the SPPA, Rule 8.01(4) prohibits an electronic hearing from being held if the panel is satisfied that doing so would be likely to cause a party significant prejudice.

31As the moving party requesting an in-person hearing, the Registrant has the onus of establishing that an electronic hearing, as opposed to an in-person hearing, will likely cause him significant prejudice.

32The Registrant’s position is based on three arguments in his Notice of Motion. Firstly, the Registrant submitted in his written materials, but not in his oral argument, that he will be prejudiced if the new hearing of the Office Incident allegations proceeds virtually. The Registrant wrote that the rehearing cannot be undertaken fairly and in accordance with the principles of administrative fairness and natural justice without an in-person hearing. The Registrant indicated during the motion that he was not going to argue the fairness issue. Secondly, the Registrant submitted in writing and orally that an in-person hearing will aid the Discipline Committee in assessing the witnesses’ credibility and reliability. The Registrant argued that the credibility assessment of the Complainant is particularly important given the Divisional Court’s findings. Thirdly, the Registrant submitted in writing and orally that conducting examinations and cross-examinations of the Complainant through an interpreter via videoconferencing will be difficult, inefficient, and more time-consuming than conducting the hearing in-person.

33The case law is clear. The argument that an electronic hearing compromises the ability of a trier of fact to assess witness credibility has been soundly rejected by the Divisional Court in Davies and by the Discipline Committee in Salehi. Furthermore, credibility on its own does not meet the test for significant prejudice.

34In determining if an electronic hearing is prohibited under section 5.2(2) of the SPPA and Rule 8.01(4) of the DC Rules, the Panel reviewed the evidence before it and determined that the threshold of significant prejudice to the Registrant has not been met on the grounds of assessing witness credibility and reliability, nor impairing the procedural fairness of the hearing.

35Even if the Registrant has not met the threshold of significant prejudice in section 5.2(2) of the SPPA and Rule 8.01(4) of the DC Rules to prohibit an electronic hearing from being held, this Panel still has the discretion to order an in-person hearing. Under the HTPTMA, a tribunal always has the jurisdiction to make orders or directions it deems appropriate in the circumstances. The panel in Salehi noted in para 38 that the over-arching consideration that determines the mode of hearing is to ensure the fairness of the hearing.

36This Panel finds that fairness considerations must therefore guide the exercise of the Panel’s discretion in this decision based on the circumstances of this case. Fairness considerations include: the ability of both parties to present their case fully and for it to be heard and understood; whether there are any risks to the expeditious and efficient running of the hearing arising from the mode of the hearing; and whether delay to a proceeding may be added by choosing one mode of hearing over another. Delay in proceedings may impact the fairness of a hearing to the parties and may negatively affect the public’s confidence in the proceeding.

37The third ground in the Registrant’s motion is efficiency. The College does not oppose the motion and agrees on this one ground of the Registrant’s motion. This Panel accepts that based on the specific experience in the first hearing in this matter the parties are concerned that proceeding by videoconference could exacerbate difficulties in the orderly delivery of the Complainant’s testimony and prolong the hearing unduly. This Panel shares these same concerns. Furthermore, given the lengthy history of this case beginning in 2016, there is to use the College’s words “a heightened interest in taking steps to ensure the orderly progress of the hearing - including that it is completed within the time allotted - to bring this matter to a final conclusion.” Maintaining the confidence of the public in proceedings was not addressed specifically by the parties but is a key consideration of this Panel given the important function of the Discipline Committee in protecting the public interest.

38In order to ensure a fair, expeditious and efficient hearing in this matter given its particular circumstances and lengthy procedural history the Panel exercises its discretion to choose the mode of hearing as an in-person hearing for the new hearing and hereby grants the Registrant’s motion.

I, Megan Peck, R.Ph., sign these reasons for the order as Chairperson of this Discipline Panel and on behalf of the members of the Discipline Panel as listed below.

Megan Peck” March 13, 2026

Chairperson Date

Panel Members

Douglas Brown, R.Ph., Elected Director Devinder Walia, Public Director